[Leica] was: XTOL rant now Rodinal rant

[freakscene at weirdness.com (Marty Deveney)]

I'm really glad these were useful - stay tuned for the Diafine rant.

>In awe for your knowledge.

You are too kind; you really should be impressed by the broad, eclectic and 
classical science education I was lucky enough to receive at the University 
of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia about 15 years ago.  When I did my 
degree, science students could take electives from the engineering school in 
optics, chemistry (including photochemistry) and astronomy, toname a few.  I 
sat in on some of these classes even when I wasn't enrolled.  I had a great 
time there.

>I just jumped in this thread, and it took me a long time to go  
>through all this (and to try to understand it), but if I'd still be  
>doing B&W analog, I'd know what combination to go for now.

Deciding on a film, paper & developer(s) combination was hard when there was 
so much choice.  For anyone interested in mixing their own chemistry, the 
options multiply rapidly.

>One of my big frustrations in the era where there was only one  
>possibility to get a photo print was a two times sequence of  
>development: develop film, project, develop paper. Infinite  
>combinations possible.
>And I never found the right one: it was impossible for me to get the  
>tonal and print quality that I saw on photo exhibits.

A lot of this lies in how you use the materials as well as what they are in 
the first place.  When I was doing a lot of it, I was a pretty decent 
darkroom technician, but most of this came down to have good teachers and 
practicing a lot.

>At least digital and PS made that part of photography a lot easier:  

For you 8-)  I find digital capture and manipulation much more difficult, 
although I think a lot of this lies in certain tonal aspects of chemical 
capture that aren't replicated in digital capture.  I've spent quite a bit 
of time lately trying to figure out if my M8 is my best friend or worst 
enemy.

>I'm very happy that now I only have to (try and) concentrate to catch  
>the right moment in the right light. That alone might become a life's  
>queeste.

The technical side of things is just one aspect; in photography, the craft 
feeds the art and vice versa, which makes it an interesting dual challenge.  
Once confortable with the technical side, the challenge becomes aesthetic, 
at least until you decide to change medium.

>'Much of this is derived from tests, but much of it is also just my  
>opinion.  If you have a long-lasting, almost physical love for  
>analog, please don't worry about defending your preference - I can  
>see why you like it.  I just don't (any more :-)

If the photos look good, it doesn't matter.

Thanks again,

Marty

Who deep down wants to settle on Neopan 400 in Xtol and print on Oriental 
Seagull glossy developed in E72 . . . but doesn't currently have a darkroom.


-- 
We've Got Your Name at http://www.mail.com!
Get a FREE E-mail Account Today - Choose From 100+ Domains